OT: COVID-19 thread #4

[dougthonus]

the facebook hearings were pretty interesting. What I have been discussing over these pages is now out there in the public.

algorithms. Profit. Lack of oversight. GREED over any form of morality.

To expect any company to put morality over profit is silly. Morality is largely an ever shifting current we couldn't all agree on anyway, so to think facebook is going to manage that on its own isn't practical.

I don't agree that facebook should be allowed to amplify known misinformation for profit regardless of what impact it has on society, but if they aren't prevented from doing it and there are no regulations around it, then they will continue to do so.

It isn't for facebook to decide the moral fiber of the country or what is good or bad for it. You need explicit regulation around those things if you want to enforce them, and they can't come from facebook itself.

[Almost Retired]

America itself has become a disinformation campaign. The government creates an agenda, usually to benefit the elites and screw the middle class. Then they have their minions in the parrot media, Silicon Valley, and academia create the echo chamber in support of their agenda. The American government can't even tell the truth about what is causing inflation nor can they admit how high it has already risen. They cook the statistics until they are meaningless. They cook the employment and unemployment statistics. Four sitting members of the corrupt Federal Reserve are resigning for front running their investment decision right before major policy statements. The rot at the top is so deep and so pervasive that I'm not sure it can ever be fixed.

A healthy mistrust of the government is not necessarily a bad thing. An unhealthy one on the other hand...

This is why I use Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, John Hopkins and other similar sources for my medical information.

this idea that academics are somehow under the thumb of the federal government is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. and there's absolutely no reason to believe that employment numbers are being cooked. if they wanted to deceive the public on that front, they'd simply not publish the numbers. as for the methodology, whether you agree with it or not, everybody only uses it as a relative measurement anyway, i.e. is unemployment high or low relative to previous numbers. it's not like they're changing the way it's calculated when they feel like it

Since this is off the Covid topic I can respond. Have you ever heard of the BLS (Bureau ofLabor Statistics) Birth-Death Model? It is a WAG (wild ass guess) the BLS puts into every employment report. In theory it is suppose to estimate the employment changes derived from the fact that some businesses close while other new ones open. Each month employment report has these "fudge factors", unsupported by any payroll or tax data. Some monthly gains put forth by the BLS contain estimates where the Birth-Death modeling additions outnumber the provable jobs added. And in 2020 the BLS changed their modeling to reflect the increasing number of Covid related business closures. We have never been given accurate statistics on business closure and employment losses. But if I can see the empty storefronts in "booming" Austin then I'm sure there are other places more affected by these business closures. I see it most noticeably in the restaurant and bar spaces that are now empty ghosts. And how many times last year did the news report big rises in unemployment claims yet the BLS would tell us that the % of unemployed dropped? If you're out of work for 6 months or more they most likely quit counting you as being alive. You can read about the Birth-Death modeling for yourself. I'm not getting this from your unapproved list of conservative news outlets.

And even more profoundly falsified are the inflation numbers. The way they calculate the Consumer Price Index has been adjusted so many times it has come to be almost meaningless. The way housing costs are calculated into the CPI gives that metric a very low weighting in the index, even though as you will agree housing is the #1 cost factor in the vast majority American household budgets. Food costs are not adequately reflected. As an example If beef goes up 40% the CPI will say it's up only 10% because the price rise caused more consumers to buy chicken which was only up 5%. They fudge the CPI so much it should be criminal. If you want to know what the true inflation numbers are you have to go to the Webite of Economist John Williams called Shadow Stats. They will give you the current inflation numbers as they would be calculated using the 1980 era modeling, and also the 1990 era modeling. Most of Shadow Stats requires a subscription but the true inflation numbers are available without a subscription. Here is the current chart:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

[TheSuzerain]

That looks like someone is taking the CPI and adding a fixed 5% every period.

You say this guy charges a subscription for rigorous analysis such as shifting a graph 5% upwards?

[micromonkey]

That looks like someone is taking the CPI and adding a fixed 5% every period.

You say this guy charges a subscription for rigorous analysis such as shifting a graph 5% upwards?

There is one born every minute. I tell you if I had no ethics I think that selling hokum ideas on the web are a booming business model across the board.

If you just take normal grocery purchases and work backwards--it comes up with impossible numbers/prices that should have been around 10 years ago--some guys ran the numbers back and saw ridiculous numbers.

[waffle]

the facebook hearings were pretty interesting. What I have been discussing over these pages is now out there in the public.

algorithms. Profit. Lack of oversight. GREED over any form of morality.

To expect any company to put morality over profit is silly. Morality is largely an ever shifting current we couldn't all agree on anyway, so to think facebook is going to manage that on its own isn't practical.

I don't agree that facebook should be allowed to amplify known misinformation for profit regardless of what impact it has on society, but if they aren't prevented from doing it and there are no regulations around it, then they will continue to do so.

It isn't for facebook to decide the moral fiber of the country or what is good or bad for it. You need explicit regulation around those things if you want to enforce them, and they can't come from facebook itself.

OK doug, try this test? Knowing what you know how would YOU feel about working for that company? You'd just shrug your shoulders OR would you get the shivers?

Me, I'd get the shivers. I have personal experience with this.

Why? Because NOT what they are doing is illegal because what they are doing is IMMORAL. What is the difference between you and the management of that company? 1. Money. 2. Power (ability to change things) and 3. a lack of CARING, or MORALS.

Morals, while hard to quantify, MATTER. Frankly, they are more important than laws in our day to day interactions. Has the internet eroded laws? No. People's moral compasses? HECK YES

[waffle]

the facebook hearings were pretty interesting. What I have been discussing over these pages is now out there in the public.

algorithms. Profit. Lack of oversight. GREED over any form of morality.

To expect any company to put morality over profit is silly. Morality is largely an ever shifting current we couldn't all agree on anyway, so to think facebook is going to manage that on its own isn't practical.

I don't agree that facebook should be allowed to amplify known misinformation for profit regardless of what impact it has on society, but if they aren't prevented from doing it and there are no regulations around it, then they will continue to do so.

It isn't for facebook to decide the moral fiber of the country or what is good or bad for it. You need explicit regulation around those things if you want to enforce them, and they can't come from facebook itself.

And note I did add LACK OF OVERSIGHT

[waffle]

I mean think about it from a micro level.

When you are about to take some action what drives you? The LAWS or your MORALS? 95% of the time its morals. Don't underestimate how important they are to how we act and/or interact.

FB's priorities were clear. Profit over all else, which, yes, I can understand, but when you KNOW have EVIDENCE (that your own company collected and chose not to make public!) that your product is having INTENSELY bad impact on the well being of Americans, especially our youth? Don't you think a little bit of that old "morals" tingle should kick in?

Part of the problem is that FB is complex (heck the internet) and hard to put your finger on. The operational smarts behind it are massive and complex. FB has used this defense "oh, it's too complicated for you so we don't need to explain it" So it is hard for some people to understand the correlation between me looking at pictures of my friend's wedding and depression. But guess what! It's there and FB KNOWS IT AND PROFITS FROM IT

EDIT - and their own research has shown that strong emotions = profit. Depression, anger, anxiety, fear, racism, nationalism. Pretty strong emotions there. And they'll just say "it's not us! It's YOU GUYS and our algorithms just take you where you want to go!" Baloney. That there is a MORAL dilemma

[dougthonus]

OK doug, try this test? Knowing what you know how would YOU feel about working for that company? You'd just shrug your shoulders OR would you get the shivers?

Me, I'd get the shivers. I have personal experience with this.

Why? Because NOT what they are doing is illegal because what they are doing is IMMORAL. What is the difference between you and the management of that company? 1. Money. 2. Power (ability to change things) and 3. a lack of CARING, or MORALS.

Morals, while hard to quantify, MATTER. Frankly, they are more important than laws in our day to day interactions. Has the internet eroded laws? No. People's moral compasses? HECK YES

No offense, but what you are saying is more or less completely irrelevant to my point.

I'm not defending what facebook is doing. I'm saying you can't count on facebook or anyone else to police themselves. It may happen, but it probably won't.

Do I think Casnios are moral? Do I think the lottery is moral? how about liquor stores or bars? How about all the companies that have polluted forever in the past and didn't change until laws were put in place? How about all the monopolies that applied their power to price gauge people? How about all the phramaceutical companies doing the same thing today?

Any person could answer yes or no to any of those questions for a variety of reason, which is why as society, we figure out which morals we can agree on and put in regulations to control them rather than leaving it to the business to decide for themselves, because hint, they will decide the thing that makes them the most money is moral, and if they don't, someone will come displace them and decide that for them instead.

And note I did add LACK OF OVERSIGHT

Sure, I'm just saying you resolve this by oversight and regulation, not by hoping facebook decides to act more morally. They won't. Ever.

I mean think about it from a micro level.

When you are about to take some action what drives you? The LAWS or your MORALS? 95% of the time its morals. Don't underestimate how important they are to how we act and/or interact.

An individual has morals. A corporation, especially an extraordinarily large one beholden to shareholders with CEOs whom primarily have fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders above all else as part of their job do not.

FB's priorities were clear. Profit over all else, which, yes, I can understand, but when you KNOW have EVIDENCE (that your own company collected and chose not to make public!) that your product is having INTENSELY bad impact on the well being of Americans, especially our youth? Don't you think a little bit of that old "morals" tingle should kick in?

I don't really follow facebook, but I'd be curious to see evidence that it is having intensely bad impact and what intensely bad impact it is having. I'm not on it really nor is anyone I know, but liquor, porn, gambling all likely have plenty of evidence of intensely bad impact and exist. Again, you regulate or you outlaw, but it's not up to facebook to stop it. If you leave it up to facebook they won't.

Part of the problem is that FB is complex (heck the internet) and hard to put your finger on. The operational smarts behind it are massive and complex. FB has used this defense "oh, it's too complicated for you so we don't need to explain it" So it is hard for some people to understand the correlation between me looking at pictures of my friend's wedding and depression. But guess what! It's there and FB KNOWS IT AND PROFITS FROM IT

As noted, bars or porn or gambling are purely exploitive. There's nothing complicated there even remotely and we still allow them, and I don't know why looking at pictures of your friends wedding depresses you, but if it does, probably best not to look. Of course that's why many people stay away from social media. I only use it minimally (twitter to talk bulls) and posting here (to the extent you view this community as social media). I'm on a couple other platforms but contribute less than once a month to them.

[waffle]

but lots of companies do! Lots of people do! Companies are made up of people at the end of the day! Are they ALL immoral? Are any of the immoral? Just the management? THESE are in fact moral decisions not simply economic.

I think you are letting them off the hook to easily simply because profit is such a compelling goal.

[waffle]

By not following their own research about the impact their algorithms (that they are able to tune) were having on lots and lots of people they made BOTH a moral and an economic decision, you cannot divorce the 2.

[dougthonus]

but lots of companies do! Lots of people do! Companies are made up of people at the end of the day! Are they ALL immoral? Are any of the immoral? Just the management? THESE are in fact moral decisions not simply economic.

I think you are letting them off the hook to easily simply because profit is such a compelling goal.

I honestly don't think you have bothered to comprehend what I have written.

Our country's history is full of tons of exploitive companies and industries. If someone is not exploitive but can make a ton more money by being exploitive, then some other exploitive version of that company will come in and run the non exploitive competitor out of business.

If you want to stop it, you stop it via laws and regulation not by trying to shame a corporation which doesn't have feelings because it's an economic construct and not a person.

[waffle]

we are disagreeing on the role of morals in their decision making and I am positing that all decisions, every single darn one all of us make, involve moral choices, that there is no avoiding it.

[waffle]

I do get your rather darwinian take on this, I do, but again, you cannot take morals out. You don't have to value them, but you can't remove them.

FB made a reeeaaaalllllyyyyyy bad moral choice. They had the choice of left or right, light or dark, bad or good, and they took the wrong one. Profit over harm to humans EDIT - they can't even claim IGNORANCE as their own research confirms it

You can't just take the sort of "well, that's just boys being boys" about this. YES, regulation GOOD, but think about how hard that is going to be for something like FB! They not only hold the keys but also the blueprints, the road, and have hired all of the good drivers.

Sometimes you just have to say "you've been VERY VERY NAUGHTY" and that's enough for a smack down

[Dresden]

A whole lot of this going on.


There were 43K deaths during the Blitz--and they took their lives seriously.

Instead of doing the simple and responsible things like our grandparents did-we are convinced any slight deviation from what we want to do is a massive abuse of rights and the highway to loss of all freedoms.

People are just trying to save as many lives as possible. People are not getting vaccinated mainly out of (bad) choices --not lack of availability or effectiveness (in the US).

I just don't think you can point to any other time in history when we have been so spoiled and so childishly unwilling.
No other generation would act as collectively stupid.

We've lost more to COVID than all US combat losses of all wars combined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

I don't get what is hard. Basically we have loud children who don't want to eat their broccoli and are litigating it with made up stories.

the one big difference between what is happening now and what happened during WWII is the messages people are getting from their leaders. I don't think Churchill went around casting doubt as to the wisdom of going into bomb shelters, or rationing gasoline, or planting victory gardens. I don't think he suggested that it would be just as safe to leave all your lights on and just ignore the air raid sirens, or infer that anyone who does go down into the shelters is some kind of a coward.

But that's what has been happening with Covid- it has become a political litmus test for many, and instead of reinforcing the messages being put out by our top scientists, many of our elected leaders have instead been sowing doubts as to the efficacy of what these experts are saying.

[dougthonus]

we are disagreeing on the role of morals in their decision making and I am positing that all decisions, every single darn one all of us make, involve moral choices, that there is no avoiding it.

I'm saying a company is highly unlikely to enforce a standard based on morals. Regulations is what the government does to enforce the moral standard on the company. If you think otherwise, I'd say you're completely wrong. The fact that facebook is in this boat is already pretty strong evidence this is true. They aren't making decisions you feel are in the moral good and are unlikely to change without being forced to.

I wouldn't think you actually disagree with this. You make mention of the need for regulation.

[Dresden]

the facebook hearings were pretty interesting. What I have been discussing over these pages is now out there in the public.

algorithms. Profit. Lack of oversight. GREED over any form of morality.

To expect any company to put morality over profit is silly. Morality is largely an ever shifting current we couldn't all agree on anyway, so to think facebook is going to manage that on its own isn't practical.

I don't agree that facebook should be allowed to amplify known misinformation for profit regardless of what impact it has on society, but if they aren't prevented from doing it and there are no regulations around it, then they will continue to do so.

It isn't for facebook to decide the moral fiber of the country or what is good or bad for it. You need explicit regulation around those things if you want to enforce them, and they can't come from facebook itself.

Disagree 100% on this. Companies absolutely should have a conscience and try to behave as a good citizen.

[dougthonus]

Disagree 100% on this. Companies absolutely should have a conscience and try to behave as a good citizen.

I wish it were this way. In a better world, it absolutely would be this way. Some companies definitely behave this way.

And for the ones that won't be have this way on their own then what?

1: You can hope they fail because people recognize this and don't support them. Clearly not happening with facebook.

2: You can hope they change on their own. Clearly not happening with facebook.

3: You can force change upon them with regulation.

If you have other ideas feel free to add. Thinking things should be a certain way doesn't make them that way though unless enough people think it that it generates regulation and laws that enforce that moral code upon them in ways that they refused to comply with otherwise.

[waffle]

Yes, companies should pursue profits, i am a staunch capitalist, but to ACCEPT that they will make immoral decisions to chase profits? Give them license? I know you are saying that you can't be surprised, but maybe we should be. Why do companies get a free pass? And MANY companies do try to behave morally! God bless em!

No, it does matter, and it should impact on their actions or lack thereof.

Morals decisions are made outside of the law and are hard to legislate anyway. They inform every decision we make. If every company acted with complete disregard to morals we'd probably all be dead by now

[dougthonus]

Yes, companies should pursue profits, i am a staunch capitalist, but to ACCEPT that they will make immoral decisions to chase profits? Give them license? I know you are saying that you can't be surprised, but maybe we should be. Why do companies get a free pass? And MANY companies do try to behave morally! God bless em!

No, it does matter, and it should impact on their actions or lack thereof.

Morals decisions are made outside of the law and are hard to legislate anyway. They inform every decision we make. If every company acted with complete disregard to morals we'd probably all be dead by now

You are philosophizing on what an industrial utopia of how companies would work for the good of people would look like with no advice that differs on mine on how to get there.

You thinking companies should behave a way doesn't alter their behavior. It isn't an action that generates an outcome. FWIW, I agree, I wish things were the way you say too. For many companies they are, or they are effectively neutral as there is no real moral quandary to begin with.

For the ones that aren't, and there are many throughout all of history, you solve that problem via government action (regulation).

[waffle]

The internet allows for the abstraction of intent. I didn't DO THIS TO YOU. But here we have clear evidence of intent=harm with profit being the sole driver.

The basic assumption is that most companies/people/organizations behave as a moral entity made up of moral people. Thus when we interact with them we aren't afraid for our well being. The hospital, the grocery store, the library. Imagine the havoc if they DIDN'T.

FB had the opportunity to pick good vs. bad and picked bad.

You are saying that technically isn't illegal. Sure. But was it wrong? Was it knowingly harmful?

Immorality matters. Things don't work if we are incapable of making moral choices. Hint, all choices have a moral aspect